I have been posting at ISCID and my old friend, Professor Davison, suggested, in his usual forthright style, a fellow poster, Daniel Smith, should try posting here :

Quote

Daniel Smith

Better yet, go over to Panda's Thumb and present your views there and see just how far you will get. Look at what is happening to Martin at After The Bar Closes. It is disgusting. I tried to deal with those animals and was banned for life. Like Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb is a closed union shop. Trust me or learn for yourself.

So I extended an invitation to Daniel, confident he will receive a warm welcome.

Daniel has stated ( please correct me if I mis-state your view)that Leo Berg in "Nomogenesis" and Otto Schindewolf in "Basic Questions in Paleontology" both produce good arguments against RM and NS using the evolution of the horse as an example.

Thanks Alan for the invitation and the thread. I don't really know what to say here. The reference to the evolution of the horse was one of many that Schindewolf uses in his book for his position against gradualism.

Berg essentially argues against selection using many examples from modern biological history.

I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.

I also respect immensely Dr. John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, although I must admit, much of it is over my head.

I myself am no scientist. As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant. What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the talk.origins newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone. I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

Also, I must say that I have very little free time to devote to this discussion - probably 1 or 2 hours a week - so there might be some long delays between posts for me.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

I myself am no scientist. As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant. What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the talk.origins newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone.

There are many posters here who are professional scientists and can answer queries or point you to references.

Quote

I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

Again, I am sure people can supply information and explanation on the scientific evidence. Science does not address anything other than observable, measurable phenomena, however, so the nature and rôle of a supreme being or creator is not available for scientific scrutiny. If you want to claim there is scientific evidence for a designer (intelligent or not) or that "Intelligent Design" can currently claim to be a scientific endeavour, then I expect you may find some disagreement.

Quote

Also, I must say that I have very little free time to devote to this discussion - probably 1 or 2 hours a week - so there might be some long delays between posts for me.

I too have to ration my time here. I sometimes wonder if academics have too much free time judging by some people's output.

I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

What has convinced you of this?

The key difference between science and apologetics is that scientific inquiry begins with the data and moves toward the best explanation, while apologetics begins with an "unshakeable" conclusion and finds data to support it. Cherished notions, "common sense," assumptions and "what everybody knows" are all up for examination in science. It's a human activity, so bias and error naturally occur. But because it is a widely distributed activity and its practitioners insist on transparency of method, its explanations converge, ultimately, toward the best available.

Science, therefore, seeks consilience. Whatever explanation is proposed for a set of observations must not only be the best fit for those data, it must also fit within the framework of all the other observations and conclusions drawn in the field. The data used to support preferred conclusions in apologetics are often "cherry-picked," that is, they only support the foregone answer if we ignore other, contrary, observations in the field.

Finally, when all is said and done, a scientist is allowed to return the answer "we still don't know." Intellectual honesty sometimes compels it, though it is usually deeply unsatisfying to admit ignorance when one has worked hard to explain. There are always unsolved problems, and if there weren't, there would be no need for science.

Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here.

--------------The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.--Joe G

Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here.

What is the "scientific attitude" in your comprehension? Taking darwinian pressupositions to the evolution of horses or what? Do you mean that "natural selection" had been involved in the phenomenon? Because all the concept of random mutation and natural selection is nothing more as an unproved hypothesis, not the "scientific attitude" as you would like us to believe. Daniel Smith quoted prominent scientists of past like Berg and Schidewolf. Daniel might has been inspired by John Davison's Manifesto, which is an extraordinary anti-darwinian source of information.

I supported the view held by John and Daniel using the research of entomologist Franz Heikertinger who waged war against proponents of "natural selection" more than 40 years. F. Heikertinger (himself an evolutionist) refuted "natural selection" as the source of mimicry giving vast number of facts, observations and by darwinists neglected phenomenons.

Those great men were prominent scientists and you have no right to call anyone using their arguments that they use "pre-formed arguments" and not "scientific attitudes".

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

Daniel: I assume you have come to these conclusions because of religous convictions ? I have done quite a few conventional science courses in my time (although I don't have a degree yet) but I have progressed to what are known as 3rd level courses in this country (beyond A-Level). I've also worked in the chemistry end of things for over thirty years although I'm now retired:

One thing I've found out about science.....contrary to what groups like AiG claim, it does not try to convert people to Atheism. None of the courses that I have taken have done this, even the ones that had evolutionary concepts like astronomy or geology for example. In fact, in order to be successful in these disciplines they must be approached from an evolutionary viewpoint. Astronomy/cosmology for example, just doesn't make sense when viewed from a YEC perspective despite what people like Dr Jason Lisle say (even he had to learn evolutionary concepts in order to obtain his Phd). What we observe is this field certainly does not confirm a young Earth/Universe.

I've also found that one does not need to abandon conventional/mainstream science (and by that I mean evolution since it encompasses a wide range of subjects, not just biology) when one becomes a Christian. I've mentioned this exceptional lady on more than one occasion as a good example:

Jocelyn Bell Burnell: One of the things that I can never answer is whether my feeling that there is a god is simply some kind of neurological pattern in my brain. I have no answer to that, I just do not know. But the evidence would lead me to think otherwise, because I’m not the only person who feels this, who has the same experiences. And I can recognise what I call god in other people as well, it’s not just in me.

I think I feel the same as the above.

YECism is more likely to convert me to agnosticism rather than conventional science.

The key difference between science and apologetics is that scientific inquiry begins with the data and moves toward the best explanation...

Science, therefore, seeks consilience. Whatever explanation is proposed for a set of observations must not only be the best fit for those data, it must also fit within the framework of all the other observations and conclusions drawn in the field.

I agree that this is what science should be.

What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?

What meaning of "gradualism" are you interested in? Might it be the "phyletic gradualism" described by Eldredge and Gould in 1972?

Quote

In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as “phyletic gradualism” and identify the following as its tenets:

(1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.

(2) The transformation is even and slow.

(3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.

(4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species’ geographic range.

In fact, in order to be successful in these disciplines they must be approached from an evolutionary viewpoint. Astronomy/cosmology for example, just doesn't make sense when viewed from a YEC perspective despite what people like Dr Jason Lisle say (even he had to learn evolutionary concepts in order to obtain his Phd). What we observe is this field certainly does not confirm a young Earth/Universe.

There are many things I have yet to make up my mind about. For instance; I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it.

My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence; not evidence that is made-to-fit the observers viewpoint. I'm finding that hard to do - since both sides of this issue tend to color the evidence with their own interpretive brush.

The first book I read on the subject (other than my high school science books) was "Scientific Creationism" by Dr. Henry Morris, and, although he makes some good points, I found some of his views to be a bit of a stretch and recognized his attempts to fit science to the bible.

I then spent quite some time on talk.origins and did much research on the internet looking at the case for the currently held theory of evolution. I found that much of the evidence for the theory was being interpreted under the assumption of the theory.

I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.

This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others. First, they are true scientists - there are no religious views expressed in their books. Second, they hold to no preconceived paradigm and they have (or had) nothing to gain by publishing their views. Most were either ridiculed or shunned, or just put on a shelf and forgotten, but their works stand the test of time (at least so far). These are the type of people I want to get my information from.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Might it be the "phyletic gradualism" described by Eldredge and Gould in 1972?

Quote

In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as “phyletic gradualism” and identify the following as its tenets:

(1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.

(2) The transformation is even and slow.

(3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.

(4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species’ geographic range.

Of these I'd pick 1 and 2, but not necessarily 3 or 4.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence..,

This is not a problem, Daniel, this is a good thing. It is always worth trying to look at the primary evidence to see if there is error or bias in interpretation.

Quote

I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.

This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others.

But should you not then look at the evidence on which they base their hypotheses rather than accepting their interpretations without question? This must be especially so in the case of Berg and Schindewolf as Berg wrote "Nomogenesis" in 1922 and Schindewolf was proposing saltation as a hypothesis in the '30s. A lot of evidence, the elucidation of the genetic code, for instance, was unavailable to them.

I think Berg was quite a polymath, producing works in geography and ichthyology, although there is a question mark as to whether he had some influence on the later disastrous ideas of Trofim Lysenko.

Michael Denton seems to have distanced himself from the Discovery Institute lately, and his current research project seems very laudable.

If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error.

This is how it is with this debate (if you could call it that). 99.99% of all scientists accept the age of the Earth/evolution. No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.